Re: Origin of /var/run contents

On Tuesday 27 February 2018 13:20:09 Martin S. Weber wrote:
> On 2018-02-27 12:46:46, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 February 2018 06:46:50 Martin S. Weber wrote:
> > > On 2018-02-27 05:03:15, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > > > (...)
> > > > So, is there somewhere that /run is initially populated from,
> > > > (...)
> > >
> > > man 5 tmpfiles.d, see also its SEE ALSO.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > -Martin
> >
> > Apparently new with jessie. But neither the lone jessie install, or
> > the only stretch install actually have files in that directory.
>
> In which of the three, /{etc,run,usr/lib}/tmpfiles.d ? According to
> systemdese, the distribution files belong in /usr/lib/ (check the
> directory, I believe you won't find it empty), administrator
> adjustments in /etc (so no surprise a vanilla install doesn't have
> those) and /run, uhmm.. Ask a systemd disciple.
>
> > If its there, why not make use of it?
>
> Apparantly, it is being used.
>
> > Neither jessie nor stretch have a manpage for systemd.tmpfiles.
>
> Where'd you get that one from? tmpfiles.d(5) references
> systemd-tmpfiles(8), which follows the typical systemd naming scheme
> of systemd-xxx for systemd specific service applications. I suggest
> you report a docco bug for the referencing file mentioning
> systemd.tmpfiles instead of systemd-tmpfiles.
Thats my mistake I guess, the dot got stuck in my 83 yo wet ram.
>
> > There is a manpage for systemd-tmpfiles, and apparently some of its
> > callable subroutines.
>
> You're not exactly supposed to call systemd-tmpfiles yourself.
> systemd-tmpfiles(8) documents the systemd services that call
> systemd-tmpfiles(8). During configuration development, it might be
> helpful for the administrator to manually verify their configuration
> though, so let's rejoice this manpage exists.
>
> > I've read that manual,
>
man 5 tmpfiles.d
> systemd-tmpfiles(8) ? You're reading the wrong manual. Return to
> tmpfiles.d(5).
>
> > (...) but with all the options, (...)
>
> Some problems are inherently complex, and lead to verbose solutions,
> simply because of the necessary configurability. "Of course" a shell
> script would be "simpler", but then again you'd need different calls
> to binaries, touch, chown, mkdir, mknod, cp, etc. If you can't be
> bothered to figure out the character you need to create the type of
> filesystem entry you require, how can you argue that you could be
> bothered to look up mknod vs. mkdir, touch or chmod?
>
> > figuring out which one
> > you need looks like a bit of Russian roulette with live ammo.
>
> Your solution being? Besides, it's not russian roulette without live
> ammo.
:)
> > And how
> > does that work when /run is a link to /var/run? and it doesn't work
> > thru links. Confusing without a lot more study
>
> I suggest you look at your "var.conf" tmpfiles.d entry (the one from
> your distribution). The situation you describe creates a circular
> symbolic link. Would you rather it worked?
>
No /run is indeed a link to /var/run, whish is real, so we're good there.
Being sorta forced to learn newer stuff after half a decade on nice
stable wheezy has spoilt me.
> Regards,
> -Martin
Thanks Martin.
--
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>